To think you can't coach people to get into Oxbridge?

[RangeTesKopeks]

I suppose I also mean this more generally for other universities, but in particular, for Oxbridge.

My feeling is that because, quite important parts of the admissions process come down to how you perform on the day (which may be unfortunate or fortunate) - the admissions tests, the interviews - this means that it's very, very difficult to coach someone to get into Oxford or Cambridge?

I also think that getting a place is down to the applicant's ability to think critically, how prepared he or she is for defending why they enjoy their subject and why they want to study it at university and how good they are at their subject. But it's still up to chance IMO.

PS I went to Cambridge - didn't get in when I first applied (had an interview from hell with a philosophy professor - wasn't even applying for philosophy!!) and had much more positive interview experiences the second time around when I re-applied.

I was offered AAB, but this predates the existence of A* grades!

So basically, two tops and a second

Wow thanks for your encouragement. I actually have a friend who went to Cambridge and he says he still pays into a fund for children such as my daughter (who he is very fond of) so he has told us there is lots of help available. Certainly haven’t ruled it out. Few years to go though but she’s very ambitious and determined.

people suggesting applications should be school-blind are missing the reason for the disparities entirely.

We MUST look at the school because:

A student likely to get AAA will be predicted AAA by a private school and AAB by a state school.

Similarly we make offers to students below the standard entry if we can see that they are likely much more able than their results to date indicate....because they were on FSM, or they went to a terrible school were they had 5 different teachers of 2 years etc.

We also need to know gender, because in certain subject people systematically underestimate the ability of one gender of the other.

We look a race/gender/school to TRY to level the playing field. Without that information far fewer minority or underprivileged candidates would get in.

btw I'm a state school oxbridge graduate who has done admissions for a Russel Group Uni.

My 1980's Welsh comprehensive ran a class for Oxbridge entrants. They had a very good acceptance rate. I think the main thing it gave students was confidence, and feeling that they were as well prepared as they could be for their interviews.

On another note, - interesting article about the he attitudes of some state teachers towards Oxford & Cambridge: www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/state-school-teachers-dont-advise-their-bright-pupils-apply-oxbridge

^Teachers fear their students' applications wouldn't be successful or that they would not fit in at the two most prestigious universities
Almost half of state secondary teachers say they would rarely – or never – advise their bright pupils to apply to Oxford or Cambridge, a new survey reveals

And a fifth of all teachers think that fewer than 20 per cent of Oxbridge students come from the state sector. In fact, the actual figure is around 60 per cent.

The survey of 1,607 primary and secondary teachers was carried out by the Sutton Trust charity.

Some 43 per cent of state secondary teachers said they tended not to advise their bright pupils to apply to Oxbridge. By contrast, only 21 per cent said they always advised their brightest pupils to apply.

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: “Many state school teachers don’t see Oxbridge as a realistic goal for their brightest pupils. The reasons are that they don’t think their pupils will get in. And, if they get in, they don’t think they will fit in.”

The survey has been published as Oxford this week released a list of sample questions that tutors might ask in admissions interviews. The university is keen to stress that the questions are designed to help applicants show off their reasoning skills, not test specific memorisation of knowledge.

'They wouldn't be happy there'
Among those teachers who did not encourage their students to apply to Oxford or Cambridge, a fifth – 19 per cent – said it was because they did not think their application would be successful. Others said that they did not think their pupils would be happy at either university.

When asked to estimate the percentage of Oxford and Cambridge undergraduates who came from state schools, 22 per cent of all teachers surveyed named a figure below 20 per cent. In fact, the actual figure is around 60 per cent.

Last month, the University of Oxford announced that it had accepted the highest proportion of state school pupils – 59 per cent – in four decades.

Only 1 per cent of teachers overestimated the proportion of state-school students at the two universities.

Addressing misconceptions
“It is vital that the universities step up their outreach activities, to address teachers’ and students’ misconceptions,” Sir Peter said.

Over the past two decades, there have been increases in the proportions of state school pupils who go on to Oxbridge. However, those from private schools still tend to receive higher-quality support in their applications, according to the Sutton Trust.

There has been no change in the proportion of state-school teachers likely to advise their children to apply for the universities since the Sutton Trust first began surveying them on the subject in 2007^

I went to Oxford from a Welsh comprehensive in the late 90s. My parents were professionals but neither of them went to university and my school didn't have a clue about Oxbridge interviews. My lovely head of 6th form tried to do a mock interview but couldn't really think of anything to ask me about apart from the weather. This was not a good preparation for the interview. Several teachers told me not even to apply as I wouldn't get in, and it would just be a waste of time and UCAS application space.

I applied to study Law, or Jurisprudence as they insist on calling it at Oxford. I really flunked my first interview; I just had no idea how to handle it and got asked about metaphysical poets (for Law, you used to also have an interviewer from a subject you studied at A level as most people don't do A level law, and I had an English tutor). I'd never come across metaphysical poets and gave some absolutely terrible answers. That flummoxed me so much that I couldn't deal with the legal questions either.

My second interview, which was just about law, went much better. They asked me to come back for a third interview, which was unusual, and I think was basically because I'd messed up the first one and done quite well in the second, plus my grades were very good and I'd been at a comp. That went well too and I was happy with how I'd done when I left. As I said, I got in.

I would definitely have had an easier time of it had I had some coaching on interview technique, or understood what they were trying to get out of me. That said, once I cottoned on a bit, I think I was helped by the fact that I had done competitive debating and spent a lot of time talking about things like politics with my Dad at home. I also think that the law tutors at my college were particularly good at spotting potential rather than polish and that the fact that I'd gone to a comprehensive but got good grades went in my favour. Our law cohort at college was comparatively state school heavy for Oxford (although not comps on the whole), and we got the best law finals results in the university. I think 4 or 5 of us got firsts and at least 3 were from state schools.

Of course you can

It starts at primary education children are coached and tutored to get into the right high school that will lead to the right university

OP I think ‘coaching’ starts right from the cradle to Oxbridge. Picking up from the Eton comment, yes many from Eton are coached to get into Oxbridge, but the boys at Eton are also coached to get into Eton in the first place. They are coached right from prep school. The prep schools that send kids to Eton and the like in droves take in prepped kids from home by exposes them to particular life experiences eg building confidence, speaking easily amongst adults, thinking critically, wide experiences, museums, exhibitions etc.

Coaching for Oxbridge is not something you do 6 months before uni application. State school kids that go there all have some unique experiences not to speak of academic ability that has led them to Oxbridge which has been honed for years.

I think the fairest way to allocate any/all university places should be on the basis of the results gained in the exams. not on the predicted grades which as others have said get inflated in private schools and deflated in non private ones. I believe that the applications should be gender and location blind. they shouldn't be based on the personal statement - which can be rewritten by a good teacher who is in the know - but on an interview where you can see exactly what the candidates are like.

there are too many state school kids who are bright enough missing out on the top unis because it starts right back at predicted grades and personal statement time.

I know it would be a logistical nightmare but with the loss of AS level we really do need to re-think this lottery. I would have all kids working for a year before they went to Uni anyway. then go forward with their results etc and an interview all in hand.

Morphene I am Grammar School too!

If schools underestimate their students’ potential that is the best reason out for waiting for results, isn’t it?

As for FSM etc: the applicant from public school may have had the sort of parents who outsource their childcare to nannies and prep schools and public schools and hardly know their children; the applicant from the school with high FSM rates (and I hope you don’t ask whether the candidate had FSM which would be intrusive) may have had a supportive and loving environment where education was valued above all things. You just don’t know. Would you want A-level markers or moderators to know which school or which sort of school?

Oxbridge should adopt blind auditions, like the one used in that violin(?)/instrument audition.

I like that. Cheaper for candidates too! Not gender blind because of the voice) and not entirely race blind; but school blind and area blind. I think the NI applicants might be obvious!

Some coaching definitely helps. I went from a sixth form college to a Cambridge interview and was clueless - I'd had no preparation and didn't have the subject specific vocabulary used in the interview. I vividly remember being asked "to what end are cesura used in this poem" and being handed a poem. I went to pieces because I'd never heard the word cesura. I not only needed the vocabulary but tactics to deal with an interview situation like that - the only other interviews I'd had were for summer catering jobs!

It was decades ago and these days I suppose I'd have googled what to expect. My headmaster was sent a feedback letter which stated that I'd done exceptionally well in the written exam set at interview but poorly in the interview itself, so I wasn't offered a place. I was predicted all As (A* didn't exist then) and got them - but so was and did everyone else who went for interview I'm sure.

It was my own fault as I'd insisted on leaving a private school to go to the local 6th form :o and a blessing in disguise as I'm sure in retrospect that I would not have enjoyed Cambridge, both the weird chronological nature of the course and the intensity of the college system.

Are you kidding? Of course you can. The admissions tests are very much the kind that you practice for and then parrot out answers. Gone are the days of wacky interviews and opaque entrance exams.

The admissions tests are very much the kind that you practice for and then parrot out answers. What are you basing that on Ttbb? We go to quite a lot of effort to avoid that.

I do think predicted grades and personal statements are a bit of a red herring.

Until recently, the AS level module marks (rather than just the A* or A etc) were a really good indicator of performance throughout the degree. Now that they are gone, Cambridge are using entrance exams in many subjects rather than rely on predicted grades.

Nowadays the interview is really only part of the admissions process, not the be all and end all.

I agree with The Sutton Trust quotes above about the stumbling blocks of actually getting state school students into the application process. Universities (esp Oxbridge) certainly have a role in improving that but there are a lot of other factors out of their control.

The problem with outreach work is that it's hard to quantify its success - for example, anecdotally I know of school children who decided to apply for university after Cambridge outreach work - they didn't apply to Cambridge but they decided to go to university having never considered it before. Seems impossible to work out that sort of effect...

The other point I was going to make (which is more relevant to the OP!) is that if an applicant has a really bad day at interview (lack of confidence, lack of experience rather than lack of subject knowledge) but has good entrance exam marks, good predicted grades, etc - they can be 'pooled'.

Not sure how widely known this system is outside of Cambridge (Oxford may well have a similar set I imagine - I just don't have any experience there)... But basically, applications aren't made centrally to the university, they are made to individual colleges and some are very heavily oversubscribed with applicants. To even this out, good candidates that can't be taken by the college for a variety of reasons can be sent to the 'pool' and another college can pick them out, sometimes re-interview them.

One of the reason for having this is to mitigate against just having a nightmare interview, or just relying on the opinions of a couple of interviewers and goes some way to ensuring that good candidates do have fair consideration. It's not perfect, but it does help.

My public school took oxbridge coaching very seriously - mock video interviews for candidates, endless prepping and considerable help. When I told them where I wanted to study they sneered and I wasn't even helped with my UCAS application. Twenty years later I have a PhD and a very well paid and exciting sounding job. I get a letter now and again asking for updates for their wanky Old Boys rag. I've never, ever replied as I have no intention of giving them any credit for where I've got today.
Conversely the up her self head girl who was coached for Oxbridge and was always favoured didn't live up to the hype and did poorly in her exams - she ended up with a third from a very mediocre establishment. Ha fucking ha. Not that there's anything wrong with a third from a mediocre establishment - but it made me laugh that the snooty school had such a poor "return on investment" for all their time and effort.
I'm not really a bitter old cow, honestly.

HarvestMoon9 Oxford also has a pooling system.

Gone are the days of wacky interviews and opaque entrance exams.

Ttbb unless you're an Oxbridge admissions tutor, I'm not sure how you'd be able to know that!!

“A student likely to get AAA will be predicted AAA by a private school and AAB by a state school”

Does anyone know what lies behind this?

Predictions are educated guesswork and results are the product of careful and moderated marking of exam-condition work.

So which should universities go by?

You absolutely can coach but Oxbridge invest so much time and effort in the interview system so that they can work out pretty fast how well somebody's been taught, and interview accordingly. Think about it: one, two or even three professors to one candidate, often two or three interviews. It takes ages and it's in order, despite all the Oxbridge-bashing in the press, to be fair. For example, I was very well-coached and had a first interview which, thanks to all the coaching, was easy. So for the second, the HoD grilled me relentlessly on the one thing I didn't want to talk about - they needed to see what I could do on my own.

Above all they are looking for how you think, not what you know and the candidate has to hold their nerve remembering this. So, to use Evelynismyspyname's example, if you don't know what a cesura is, you ask "what's a cesura?" and then the professor will say "a break in the verse". They haven't insulted you or called you stupid; they've given you the tools to answer the question. Then you can say "Ah. I see. Let me think...", look at the verse and carry on with your answer. You can say "OK, that's the first time I've heard of this, I'm just going to take a couple of minutes to think about it." Whatever the prof. may think of the school for not teaching it, they aren't going to penalise the candidate for it.

What does hinder uncoached candidates is if they are overawed by the whole thing and panic. Apart from being too shy to take time to provide a considered answer, another big pitfall is the Devil's Advocate Moment. The tutors may pretend to disagree with you, to see if you can defend an argument. So it's important to warn candidates that if they do that they shouldn't just back down, but consider calmly whether to revisit the point (maybe they really do disagree), or stand by it.

All candidates would do well to read beyond/around their A Level content so they can demonstrate curiosity and passion for their subject. It is not enough to say you are curious and passionate, you have to have actually done something to show that you are...and if your school is useless, you do not need to be coached for that, just know where a library is and how to use the internet. The student can also demonstrate curiosity by attending college open days, talking to the tutors. No tutor has ever not welcomed an email from a sixth former in the summer, saying they would so much like to apply and how could they prepare for the interview. The email addresses of all tutors are on the college websites. There is often financial help available to attend things. It's NOT inaccessible AT ALL but students have to be prepared to take matters into their own hands because the other thing Oxbridge is looking for is independent thinking.

I never witnessed any racism or class politics at all during all my time at Oxford, everyone is there because they are into and good at their subject. I know there are a few daft drinking socs. but there are plenty of them at Durham n all, and nobody makes you join them. All the Oxbridge bashing really boils my piss tbh. It all happens at school and media level, the universities go to massive efforts to counteract it. Of course it puts people off, it is incredibly destructive and it is above all not true.

I went to state school in the sticks then Cambridge.

I did a reasonable amount of reading around the subject. I was an ordinarily bright 18 year old, but no genius.

I am looking at secondary schooling for my eldest and tbh am wondering why people put themselves through so much stress, financial pressure and competition to get their kids into top schools when chances are they would get on fine in the local state school (assuming it is an ordinarily good school (which most are) with no enormous behavioural or aspiration problems).